DOCSLIB.ORG

The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction: PCHR’S Work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction: PCHR’S Work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory THE PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: PCHR’s Work in the occupied Palestinian territory January 2010 Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction: PCHR’s Work in the occupied Palestinian territory T A B L E O F C ON T EN T S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1.1. Applicable legal framework 14 2. TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 15 2.1. Jurisdictional bases 15 2.2. The evolution of universal jurisdiction 16 2.3. The exercise of universal jurisdiction 18 2.4. Universal jurisdiction in the modern era 18 2.4.1. Treaty based universal jurisdiction obligations 18 2.4.2. Jurisprudence relating to universal jurisdiction in the modern era 20 2.4.3. Individual criminal responsibility and command responsibility 24 2.4.4. Immunity 26 2.4.5. Summary 27 3 3. THE MOTIVATIONS UNDERLYING INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE PURSUIT OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 29 3.1. Impunity 29 3.2. Deterrence 31 4. AN EXAMINATION OF SELECT INTERNATIONAL CRIMES 33 4.1. The fundamental principles of IHL 33 4.1.1. The principle of distinction 33 4.1.2. The direct targeting civilians or civilian objects 37 4.1.3 Wilful killing 39 4.1.4. Extensive destruction of property 40 4.1.5. Indiscriminate attacks 42 4.2. The prohibition of torture 46 4.2.1. The prohibition of torture in international law 46 4.2.2. The definition of torture 47 4.2.3. The elements of the crime of torture 49 4.3. Crimes against humanity 50 4.3.1. An attack must be directed against a civilian population 52 4.3.2. Widespread or systematic 53 4.3.3. Knowledge of the attack 54 4.3.4. The underlying offences 55 5. EXAMPLES OF VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW COMMITTED DURING THE OFFENSIVE ON THE GAZA STRIP 57 5.1. Wilful killing (murder) of civilians 57 5.1.1. Majeda and Raya Abu Hajjaj, 4 January 2009 58 5.1.2. Fouad and Farah Al-Helu, 4 January 2009 58 5.1.3. Shaza and Isra Al-Habash, 4 January 2009 59 5.1.4. Al-Dayah, 6 January 2009 60 5.1.5. ‘Roof knocking’ 61 5.1.6. The illegal classification of civilian police and governmental buildings as legitimate military objectives 62 5.2. Indiscriminate attacks 67 5.2.1. The use of atillery and mortars 68 5.2.2. Abu Halima, 4 January 2009 69 5.2.3. Al-Fakhoura, 6 January 2009 70 5.2.4. The use of white phosphorous 72 5.2.5. UNRWA Field Office Compound, 15 January 2009 75 5.2.6. UNRWA Beit Lahia School, 17 January 2009 77 5.2.7. The use of flechettes 78 PCHR’s Work in the occupied Palestinian5.2.8. territoryAbdul-Dayem, 5 January 2009 79 5.3. Extensive destruction not justified by 4 military necessity 79 5.4. Extensive destruction of agricultural land 83 5.5. Crimes against humanity 85 6. INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 89 7. GENUINELY UNWILLING OR UNABLE: LEGAL MECHANISMS AVAILABLE TO PALESTINIAN VICTIMS 95 7.1. The oPt 95 7.2. The State of Israel 96 7.2.1. The perceived status of the Gaza Strip and the classification of its civilian population as ‘Enemy Aliens’ 97 7.2.2. Israeli legal and judicial mechanisms 99 7.2.3. Investigative mechanisms 102 7.2.4. The opening of criminal investigations 104 7.2.5. The opening of civil investigations 105 7.2.6. Prompt and timely remedy 105 7.2.7. A note on ‘Operation Cast Lead’ 107 7.2.8. Summary 109 7.3. International legal remedies 111 The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction: 8. REVIEW of PCHR’S UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION CASEWORK 113 8.1. The alleged crimes 113 8.1.1. Targeted assassination 113 8.1.2. House demolition 115 8.1.3. The Al-Daraj attack 116 8.2. Case: Shaul Mofaz in the U.K. 117 8.2.1. Synopsis 117 8.2.2. The defendant and the alleged crimes 117 8.2.3. Outcome 117 8.3. Case: Ben-Elizer Et Al in Switzerland 118 8.3.1. Synopsis 118 8.3.2. The defendants 118 8.3.3. The Alleged Crimes 118 8.3.4. Outcome 119 8.4. Case: Caterpillar Incorporated in the U.S. 119 8.4.1. Synopsis 119 8.4.2. The Defendant 119 8.4.3. Outcome 120 8.5. Case: Doron Almog in the U.K. 121 8.5.1. Synopsis 121 8.5.2. The defendant and the alleged crimes 121 8.5.3. The events surrounding the attempted arrest 122 8.5.4. Outcome 122 8.6. Case: Avraham Dichter in the U.S. 123 8.6.1. Synopsis 123 8.6.2. The Defendant 123 5 8.6.3. Outcome 124 8.7. Case: Moshe Yaalon in New Zealand 125 8.7.1. Synopsis 125 8.7.2. Defendant and alleged crimes 125 8.7.3. Events surrounding the attempted arrest 125 8.8. Case: Ami Ayalon in the Netherlands 126 8.8.1. Synopsis 126 8.8.2. Defendant and alleged crimes 126 8.8.3. Events surrounding the attempted arrest 127 8.8.4. Outcome 128 8.9. Case: Benjamin Ben-Eliezer et al in Spain 129 8.9.1. Synopsis 129 8.9.2. The defendants and the alleged crime 129 8.9.3. Outcome 130 8.10. Summary 131 9. PCHR’S CONFERENCES ON UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 133 9.1. Conference: Malaga 133 9.1.1. Synopsis 133 9.2. Conference: Cairo 135 9.2.1. Synopsis 135 9.2.2. Follow on from Cairo 136 9.3. Conference: Madrid 137 9.3.1. Synopsis 137 9.4. Conference: London 138 9.4.1. Synopsis 138 10. CONCLUSION 141 Annex 1: Gonzalo Boye: Impunity and prosecution of Israeli war criminals: a view of the Spanish jrisdiction 145 Annex 2: Daniel Machover: Expanding universal jurisdiction and the principle of universal jurisdiction from a British perspective 153 PCHR’s Work in the occupied Palestinian territory 6 The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction: E XEC ut I V E Su MMARY ‘The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction’ 7 is released by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) at a time when world attention is focused on the Gaza Strip. Israel’s conduct of hostilities during ‘Operation Cast Lead’ (27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009) provoked global shock and outrage, and drew international condemnation, while the subsequent report of the UN Fact Finding Mission (the Goldstone Report) focused international attention. PCHR and numerous other human rights organizations have documented and publicized Israel’s alleged violations of international humanitarian law (IHL); many of which amount to war crimes and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The widespread and systematic nature of these violations raise suspicion that Israel committed crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip; an allegation not lightly made. Yet despite this level of international attention, the State of Israel and suspected Israeli war criminals have not been held to account. Regrettably, this lack of accountability, and the resultant climate of impunity, has been a long- standing feature of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Since the occupation began in 1967, neither the State of Israel, nor individuals suspected of committing war crimes, have been brought before a court and prosecuted in accordance with the norms of international law. Israel has been allowed to act as a State above the law; a reality illustrated by the reaction of powerful States – lead by the U.S. – to the publication of the Goldstone Report. PCHR firmly believe that this lack of accountability serves to encourage continued violations of international law and to undermine respect for the rule of law itself. It is Palestinian civilians – the protected persons of IHL – who pay the price for this impunity, as they continue to suffer at the hands of a brutal and illegal occupation. Judicial regulation is an essential component in ensuring respect for the rule of law and protecting victims: in order for the law to be relevant, it must be enforced. Those accused of violating international law must be investigated and prosecuted. This judicial process is essential, both to ensure victims’ rights to an effective judicial remedy, and to combat impunity and promote deterrence. However, there are limited judicial mechanisms available to Palestinian victims of Israeli violations of international law. According to the terms of the 1995 Israel-Palestine Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) does not have jurisdiction over Israelis. This explicitly removes Israeli citizens, and members of its armed forces, from the jurisdiction of the PNA; no Israeli may be brought PCHR’s Work in the occupiedbefore Palestinian a Palestinian territory court. This legally binding restriction effectively removes the Palestinian judicial system from 8 the ambit of legal options available to victims. The State of Israel is legally bound to investigate and prosecute Israeli citizens accused of committing international crimes. To date, however, Israel’s investigations have proved inadequate, while prosecutions – particularly at the command level – have not been forthcoming. In this respect, Israel must be regarded as shirking its legal obligations, and denying its victims effective judicial remedy. ‘The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction’ outlines the inadequacies of the Israeli judicial system. It is presented that this system – as it relates to Palestinian victims of Israeli violations – does not meet necessary international standards with respect to the effective administration of justice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israel and the Middle East News Update
    Israel and the Middle East News Update Thursday, February 28 Headlines: ​ ● Likud Tries Last Ditch Effort to Prevent Indictment Decision ● Poll: Indictment Could Be Election Game-Changer ● Survey: Right-wing Voters Say PM Being Framed ● Gantz Denies Accusation of Sexual Assault in High School ● UN: Israel May Have Committed Crimes Against Humanity ● Kushner Makes Little Progress Lobbying Gulf on US Plan ● Israel Strikes Hamas in Gaza After Incendiary Attacks ● Tensions Rise in Israeli Jails as Prisoners Nix Leadership Commentary: ● Al Monitor: “Is Netanyahu Coordinating with Trump over Peace Plan” − By Ben Caspit, Senior Columnist ● New York Times: “Election Shows Death of the Two-State Solution” − By Shmuel Rosner, Editor, Jewish Journal S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace 633 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 The Hon. Robert Wexler, President ● Yoni Komorov, Editor ● Aaron Zucker, Associate Editor ​ ​ News Excerpts ​ February 28, 2019 Times of Israel Likud Tries Last Ditch Effort to Prevent Indictment Decision In a last-ditch attempt to prevent criminal charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the April elections, the Likud party filed a petition Thursday morning calling on the High Court to block the announcement expected later in the day. According to Likud’s legal adviser, allowing Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit to publicize his decision so close to the elections would be an “unprecedented interference” in the democratic process. The Justice Ministry said there was no legal cause for preventing the publication. Times of Israel Poll: Indictment Could Be Election Game-Changer The indictment decision could have a game-changing impact on the elections, a new Times of Israel poll shows.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction Is Classically Defined As 'A Legal
    THE SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: THE REPORT OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE A/64/452-RES 64/117 COMMENTS FROM KENYA The principle of universal jurisdiction is classically defined as 'a legal principle allowing or requiring a state to bring criminal proceedings in respect of certain crimes irrespective of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim';' The rationale behind it is based on the notion that 'certain crimes are so harmful to international interests that states are obliged to bring proceedings against the perpetrator, regardless of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim'. Universal jurisdiction allows for the trial of international crimes committed by anybody, anywhere in the world. '2 There are aspects of the principle of universal jurisdiction- such as the compatibility of the ICC statute with constitutional provisions to the immunity of Heads of State and amnesty laws - that have been considered recently. Buttressed by the aut dedere aut judicare principle, States have increasingly implemented the principles of universal jurisdiction and complementarity in a more systematic and concrete manner through their national legislation. The preamble to the ICC Statute contains the universal jurisdiction principle: (aut dedere aut judicare principle) which provides: 'Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation' (para. 4); (universal jurisdiction) 'Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes' (para.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report
    Research. Debate. Impact. 2016 ANNUAL REPORT 1 Table of Contents Message from the President and the Chairman of the Board 4 Sixth Meeting of IDI's International Advisory Council 8 The Center for Democratic Values and Institutions 11 The Center for Religion, Nation and State 23 The Center for Governance and the Economy 29 The Center for Security and Democracy 35 The Guttman Center for Surveys and Public Policy Research 41 IDI in the Media 47 Our Team 50 Our Leaders 51 Our Partners 52 Financials 53 Message from the President and the Chairman of the Board Dear Friends, 2016 was a year of change and upheaval throughout the jobs available to Haredim. The government adopted most of democratic world. Set against the tumult of Brexit and the the recommendations and is now in the process of allocating US elections, Israel seemed at times like an island of stability. a half-billion-shekel budget in line with these proposals. This However, under the surface, Israeli society is changing, and IDI success story illustrates the potential of turning relatively small took on a leading role in identifying those changes and working philanthropic investments into large-scale transformational with policymakers to address them. change by affecting policy and legislation on the basis of outstanding applied research. As the report that follows lays out, 2016 was a year rich in activity and achievements. In this letter, we have chosen to single Several new scholars joined our team in 2016. Ms. Daphna out the impact one program had on government policy in the Aviram-Nitzan, former director of research for the Israel employment area.
    [Show full text]
  • A) Universal Jurisdiction
    PGA commentary to the selected provisions of the Bill on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on the Implementation of the International Criminal and Humanitarian Law no. 2689 09 March 2021 A) Universal Jurisdiction 1. Does universal jurisdiction enshrined in criminal laws of a certain State, such as the State extending its domestic criminal law on the crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression irrespective of the place where they were committed, constitute interference in the sovereignty of foreign countries? No, it doesn’t. According to the classical doctrine relating to ordinary crimes, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is regarded as an ‘aspect’ or ‘manifestation’ of the sovereignty of a State1. This stems from practical and logical consequences of territorial control, as it is the territorial State where the crime occurred that has primary responsibility for investigations and prosecutions in the exercise of its sovereign powers, as such State is usually best placed to gather evidence, secure witnesses and ensure that justice is given to those most affected. However, if the territorial State is unable or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction, there needs to be a complementary tool to ensure that an accused person does not escape criminal accountability for the crimes that he or she may have committed in a given territory. A fortiori, the same logic applies to the most serious crimes of international concern. These crimes are labelled as “international crimes” or, to be more precise, “crimes under International Law” or “crimes against International Law” (delicta juris gentium). Given their extreme gravity, they do not affect the sovereignty of an individual State, but they affect the sovereignty of all States, rendering their suppression a joint concern of all members of the international community.
    [Show full text]
  • German Court Exercises Universal Jurisdiction: Implications for Corporate Criminal Liability Under International Law
    German court exercises universal jurisdiction: Implications for corporate criminal liability under international law 26 February 2021 On 24 February 2021, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Koblenz sentenced a former Syrian secret police officer to a prison term of four and a half years for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity (judgment of 24 February 2021, case No 1 StE 3/21). The court found that the accused had committed acts of torture and deprivation of liberty when he arrested and transported protesters to an interrogation centre with a known record of torture. While the defendant, a Syrian national, was arrested in the German city of Koblenz after he had been granted asylum in Germany, the crimes were committed in Syria and all victims and co-perpetrators are Syrian nationals. This notwithstanding, based on the principle of universal jurisdiction, the German court exercised jurisdiction over the case. The decision of the German court is the first judgment worldwide finding that the acts of the Syrian government constitute crimes against humanity. It serves as a reminder that gross violations of international law may trigger severe sanctions irrespective of where such violations are committed. Given the increasing tendency to expand criminal liability to corporations, this may equally affect companies that fail to ensure compliance of their worldwide business activities with international law. Universal jurisdiction The German court's decision is noteworthy beyond the facts of the individual case, as it is based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. This widely acknowledged legal concept is followed by numerous states worldwide. It means that a state may investigate and prosecute certain crimes, irrespective of where the crimes were committed and irrespective of the nationality of the accused and victims.
    [Show full text]
  • The Guatemala Genocide Cases: Universal Jurisdiction and Its Limits
    © The Guatemala Genocide Cases: Universal Jurisdiction and Its Limits by Paul “Woody” Scott* INTRODUCTION Systematic murder, genocide, torture, terror and cruelty – all are words used to describe the campaigns of Guatemalan leaders, including President Jose Efrain Rios Montt, directed toward the indigenous Mayans in the Guatemalan campo. The United Nations-backed Truth Commission concludes that the state carried out deliberate acts of genocide against the Mayan indigenous populations.1 Since Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro took Guatemalan presidential office in 1966, Guatemala was involved in a bloody civil war between the army and guerrilla groups located in the Guatemalan countryside. The bloodshed escalated as Montt, a fundamentalist Christian minister, rose to power in 1982 after taking part in a coup d’état and becoming the de facto president of Guatemala. He was in power for just sixteen months, considered by many to be the bloodiest period of Guatemala’s history.2 Under his sixteen-month rule, more than 200,000 people were victims of homicide or forced kidnappings, 83% of whom were of indigenous Mayan origin. Indigenous Mayans were targeted, killed, tortured, raped, and * Paul “Woody” Scott is an associate attorney with Jeri Flynn & Associates in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. His practice is primarily immigration law and criminal defense, specializing in defending immigrants charged with criminal offenses, and deportation defense. He was born in San Pedro Sula, Honduras and moved to the United States at a very early age. He is fluent in both English and Spanish. 1 United Nations Office for Project Services [UNOPS], Commission for Historical Clarification [CEH], Conclusions and Recommendations, GUATEMALA, MEMORIA DEL SILENCIO [hereinafter, GUATEMALA, MEMORY OF SILENCE], Volume V, ¶ 26 (1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Dial H for Homicide: Il Buono, Il Cattivo, Il Brutto
    DIAL H FOR HOMICIDE: IL BUONO, IL CATTIVO, IL BRUTTO George L. Schraer To whom the following words of Ronald Reagan not only fully apply, but aptly and applicably apply: “Deep down, he’s shallow” TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. 1 I. General Overview. 3 II. A Few Preliminary Concepts. 4 A. Fetal Attraction.. 4 B. Causation. 5 C. Jury Unanimity. 8 III. First Degree Murder. 10 A. Premeditated Murder. 11 1. Express Malice. 11 2. Premeditation and Deliberation. 14 B. Murder by Various Means. 15 1. Destructive Device or Explosive. 16 2. Lying in Wait. 17 3. Torture.. 19 C. First Degree Felony Murder. 20 IV. Second Degree Murder. 25 A. Second Degree Murder With Express Malice But Without Premeditation or Deliberation. 25 B. Second Degree Murder with Implied Malice.. 25 C. Second Degree Murder Based on Provocation Sufficient to Negate Premeditation or Deliberation. 32 D. Second Degree Felony Murder. 33 1. General Principles of Law. 33 2. Inherently Dangerous Felonies.. 34 i 3. The Merger or Ireland Doctrine. 36 V. Attempted Murder and Attempted Manslaughter. 38 A. Attempted Murder. 38 1. General Legal Principles.. 38 2. Kill Zone. 40 B. Attempted Manslaughter. 43 VI. Voluntary Manslaughter. 44 A. Sudden Quarrel/Heat of Passion. 45 B. Imperfect Self-Defense.. 48 C. Imperfect Defense of Others. 51 VII. Involuntary Manslaughter. 51 A. Misdemeanor Involuntary Manslaughter . 52 B. Lawful Act Involuntary Manslaughter . 53 C. Felony Involuntary Manslaughter. 55 D. Additional Theories of Involuntary Manslaughter. 56 VIII. Vehicular Manslaughter. 60 IX.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoveret Eng2.Indd
    Violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians and their property has been a daily occurrence for many years in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The report A Semblance of Law: Law Enforcement upon Israeli Civilians in the West Bank reveals the dynamic that leads to the absence of effective law enforcement in regards to Israeli civilians in the West Bank who commit offenses against Palestinians. The report documents serious faults in all stages of the law enforcement process: when offenses are committed, IDF soldiers present on the scene show a grave tendency to ignore them; Palestinians face physical and bureaucratic difficulties when they attempt to file complaints; and above all, the investigation stage shows faults in the examination of incidents, failure to implement the required investigatory steps, and sometimes an unwillingness to undertake even a cursory investigation. Yesh Din - Volunteers for Human Rights was founded in March 2005, and since then its volunteers have been working for a structural and long-term improvement of the human rights situation in the OPT. The organization collects and disseminates credible and current information on systematic human rights abuses in the OPT; applies public and legal pressure on the state authorities to stop them; and raises public awareness of human A Semblance rights abuses in the OPT. In order to realize its goals effectively, Yesh Din operates according to a unique model among human rights organizations in Israel: of Law the organization is run and staffed by volunteers, and is assisted on a daily basis by a professional staff Law Enforcement of lawyers, human rights experts and strategic and communications consultants.
    [Show full text]
  • ^ How I Became a "Self-Hating Jew"
    How I Became-ALL ARTS I was surfing the web and I found this wonderful video, "How I became a 'Self- Hating Jew'". This clearly intelligent & sensitive young woman's heart shines brightly. Her descriptions of her encounters with Zionists & their supporters is just heart- breaking. More and more people need to see the obvious; Israel is a terrorist, racist, theocratic, and soul-killing country. It's not good for the Palestinians, the Bedouins, not even the Jewish people themselves. I'm glad Carey Wedler gets it. I hope other young people understands this, too. I've copied, pasted & assembled the articles she refers to in this informational document. For further info, please go to the web addresses—URLs—directly below the title. All web addresses—URLs—are up-to-date as of Tuesday, June 12th, 2018. By: A Critical Thinker ^ How I Became a "Self-Hating Jew" 8:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLDE4mRwfSQ By: CAREY WEDLER 45K Views: 490,146 Published: Aug 11, 2014 Sometimes you have to ask questions. If you like this video, please like, share, & subscribe to this channel: https://www.youtube.com/careyelizabeth824 Find me on Facebook & Twitter: https://www.facebook.com/CareyWedler https://www.twitter.com/careyinrogue Page 1 of 127 If you'd like to help me produce quality content to promote the message of peace, freedom & love, please donate BTC!: Bitcoin: 1E7G2kmUAiEJu3b46E52TSzWY7pHqeYUhk Thank you! * Due to the hateful, aggressive nature that discourse often takes on this subject, comments have been disabled. * All images protected under the Fair Use Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Assault Includes Both a Specific Intent to Commit a Battery, and a Battery That Is Otherwise Unprivileged Committed with Only General Intent
    QUESTION 5 Don has owned Don's Market in the central city for twelve years. He has been robbed and burglarized ten times in the past ten months. The police have never arrested anyone. At a neighborhood crime prevention meeting, apolice officer told Don of the state's new "shoot the burglar" law. That law reads: Any citizen may defend his or her place of residence against intrusion by a burglar, or other felon, by the use of deadly force. Don moved a cot and a hot plate into the back of the Market and began sleeping there, with a shotgun at the ready. After several weeks of waiting, one night Don heard noises. When he went to the door, he saw several young men running away. It then dawned on him that, even with the shotgun, he might be in a precarious position. He would likely only get one shot and any burglars would get the next ones. With this in mind, he loaded the shotgun and fastened it to the counter, facing the front door. He attached a string to the trigger so that the gun would fire when the door was opened. Next, thinking that when burglars enter it would be better if they damaged as little as possible, he unlocked the front door. He then went out the back window and down the block to sleep at his girlfriend's, where he had been staying for most of the past year. That same night a police officer, making his rounds, tried the door of the Market, found it open, poked his head in, and was severely wounded by the blast.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Precise' Strikes: Fractured Bodies, Fractured Lives
    Israel’s drone wars: An update ‘Precise’ strikes: Fractured Bodies, Fractured Lives Front Cover image: Israel’s Heron TP drone at Tel Nof Air Force base, February 2010. Credit: UPI/Debbie Hill. Note: The term ‘drone’ is used interchangeably with ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)’ Drone Wars UK is a small British NGO established in 2010 to undertake research and advocacy around the use of armed drones. We believe that the growing use of remotely-controlled, armed unmanned systems is encouraging and enabling a lowering of the threshold for the use of lethal force as well as eroding well established human rights norms. While some argue that the technology itself is neutral, we believe that drones are a danger to global peace and security. We have seen over the past decade that once these systems are in the armoury, the temptation to use them becomes great, even beyond the constraints of international law. As more countries develop or acquire this technology, the danger to global peace and security grows. Published by Drone Wars UK Drone Wars UK Written by Chloe Skinner Peace House, 19 Paradise Street November 2019 Oxford, OX1 1LD Designed: Chris Woodward www.dronewars.net www.chriswoodwarddesign.co.uk [email protected] ‘Precise Strikes’, Fractured Bodies, Fractured Lives | Israel’s drone wars: An update | 1 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 “A RAPIDLY-GROWING DIVISION”: Israel’s drones and their operators 5 3 “ACCESS, PERSISTENCE, ACCURACY.” The humanitarian claims made for drone technology 8 4 “IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, THEY WERE CUT TO PIECES.” Life
    [Show full text]
  • Warning Civilians Prior to Attack Under International Law: Theory and Practice
    Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen XIV Warning Civilians Prior to Attack under International Law: Theory and Practice Pnina Sharvit Baruch and Noam Neuman* primary goal of the modern law of armed conflict (also known as interna- Ational humanitarian law) is to protect civiliansasmuchaspossiblefromthe violent consequences of hostilities. Accordingly, the law of armed conflict requires that the parties to a conflict apply certain precautionary measures in order to mini- mize incidental injury to civilians resulting from military attacks. One of these pre- cautionary measures is the provision of warnings to civilians prior to an attack. This article will deal with this measure, and examine both theoretical and practical aspects of providing advance warnings of attacks. During World War II there were instances when civilians were warned prior to an attack. Advance warnings were also provided during other armed conflicts throughout the second half of the twentieth century; however, the amount, scope and specificity of warnings issued to civilians have dramatically increased in the conflicts fought since the beginning of this century. Probably the most elaborate and systematic warnings were issued by Israel in its conflict in Lebanon in 2006 and * Professor (Colonel, Israel Defense Forces (Ret.)) Pnina Sharvit Baruch, Tel Aviv University School of Law, Israel, and Lieutenant Colonel Noam Neuman, Israel Defense Forces. The opin- ions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily re- flect the views of the Israel Defense Forces or the government of Israel. We would like to thank Galit Rajuan, Nimrod Karin and David Benjamin for their valuable comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]